next »

[baconman]

I'm sure most of us here will agree that a large majority of modern games are crap. But are there concepts within modern games that you think are noteworthy and worth consideration, even which conceptualizing retro-styled games?

Mass Effect 2's dialogue system comes to immediate mind, along with maybe DDR/RB2-style level select screens (imagine how quick a game like Donkey Kong Country could be navigated like that, optionally speaking) or how fighters' depth and fun potential seemed to spike in the 32-bit era.

What do you think modern gaming has to offer to the design arena?

[Tiderion]

Customization.

No doubt that as computers have gotten better so too has the ability to create customizable characters, weapons, etc. Say what you will but creating unique characters in City of Heroes was half the game. More processing power + more coding = more options. This is not always useful but it is fun when you can make something your own and choose power sets or weapons to match your play style.

[JarMustard]

That was a pretty loaded statement, hah. 
I'm not sure what to say. 

I love the games I grew up with as much as the next guy, but from a designer's standpoint, most games considered classic have huuuuge design flaws. 



Consider the usability and menu navigation of Sim City, or the fact that most people will never experience the greatness of ninja gaiden (without emulators).  Consider the controls of Out of this World ("Another World" in other countries i think). 


Our standards for a game's control system, pacing and difficulty, and information presentation has risen so high in the past few decades.   What would pass for good design back then would be considered out-dated now... and for a good reason.

I personally feel as the medium of videogames continues to evolve we are discover new and better design mechanics for games.  Good design is incorporated into many (even not-so-great) games without directly intending to, simply because our general vocabulary of game design is expanding.


Many modern games' approach to innovation is taking a formula that we all know and understand and bringing it in a slightly new direction.  Some examples would be Braid, Pacman CE, Hatsworth, Ikaruga, Spleunky, and even less successful games like Hoard & Dungeons (these are all just off the top of my head, im sure you could add tons of games to this list).

But this illustrates my previous point: that as more and more games are made, each new game is using all previous games as a reference point.  The industry is changing and there is no going back. 




Sorry, I know this isn't a very direct response to your question.  I guess your initial dismissal of modern gaming just irked me a bit. 

And as a disclaimer i'm not saying there are not tons of terrible games being released almost daily (However, I feel the proportion of good to bad is about the same as it used to be)

[Bree]

I'm not gonna get into the old-school vs. new-school debate, but if you're interested in recent modern game mechanics, the Half-Life style of cutscenes are very new. Due to advances in 3D technology, we can now portray cinematic events in-game and allow players to experience them in-character.

The use of physics is also a fairly recent advancement as well- the puzzle genre has seen a major revival with physics-based games like Portal, Cut the Rope, Angry Birds, etc. FPS games like physics too, but it's not necessarily as integral to gameplay. Half=Life 2 is an arguable exception, but most often it seems that they like to use ragdolls for an added 'wow' effect.

Another modern gameplay mechanic: stats, not just in RPGs but in EVERYTHING. Sports games, shooter games, racing games, you name it. It gives that sense of progression and instant rewards that Final Fantasy players have learned to crave for decades, but applies it to faster-paced gameplay to make it more exciting. Perks are also a new thing, since most older FPS games didn't have persistent ranks.

[Richard Kain]

I'm sure most of us here will agree that a large majority of modern games are crap.

Yes and no. Is there a higher percentage of crap games produced today than there were in the days of yore? Yes, there probably are. But then, the sheer number of games produced these days dwarfs what came out in the days of yore. I view this trend less as a consequence of modern design than it is a reflection of the rapid growth of this industry.

Modern game design in the commercial space is informed and inspired by classic game design, but it is pushed through the marketing machine before release. It is subject to the casualties of focus testing and market research. And this means that most of the more inventive and/or experimental ideas get cut out before major commercial releases hit the market. Sequels in major franchises are at even greater risk, as the publisher forces the developer to aim for broader and broader demographics.

And then there are the tight economic times we are weathering, which give publishers even more excuse to push marketing agendas on their developers. The games industry is hardly the only victim. All modern entertainment industries are being affected by these trends.

Thankfully, the indie development scene is actually growing in size and influence, and is much less vulnerable to market pressures. We're still seeing plenty of experimentation from this community, and will likely see more in the future.

There are still plenty of examples of solid design concepts in modern gaming, they are a little harder to spot though. (since most modern games tend to be much, much more complex than their predecessors) And of course, there are plenty of examples of old-school design principles being given a modern re-working, such as Punch-Out on the Wii.

[s0]

What Theo says about physics engines is true. Also the possibilities opened up by current technology in general, including new control methods like motion and touch controls.

The menu/interface design in new games is usually vastly superior to old games. I personally don't have a problem with clunky interfaces, but it can't hurt to have a better one.

Aside from that, I dunno. Most current game design trends just seem to be aimed at making games sleeker and blander and I'm not particularly interested in that.

[eiyukabe]

I'm sure most of us here will agree that a large majority of modern games are crap.

I actually do agree with this, fuzzily. I mean, I haven't done any stat-gathering to justify whether or not it's a "large majority", but I feel like modern games (ignoring small and indie games, because I assume you're talking about big publisher titles) suffer tremendously from a lack of agility due to large budgets, complicated development, and worst of all indifferent management. I almost never play a big budget game where the actual game mechanics felt fully realized, polished, and necessary, and I believe this is because good design sensibilities take a back seat to arbitrary schedules and things like graphics & back-of-the-box lists. It feels like modern game companies are trying to cash in on whatever's hot, throw a lot into screen shots, trailers, and advertising, and then gameplay is just some afterthought that glues it all together. Ugh, it makes me sick.  

An example: a title I worked on for a large publisher had camera controls inverted to what the target audience and genre dictated. And the option to fix it was not accessible from in game; you had to go back to the title screen after you notice how bad the game played  Fixing this was a simple low-risk change (you'll have to take my word for it, but a lot of programmers including myself agreed) and a programmer already had it done locally. But the higher ups turned down the change out of some nebulous fear that it would hurt our submission. Admittedly it _was_ close to submission, but this issue was well-vocalized for months and could have been fixed at any time, and anyone with any sense of good interface design would recognize that flawed camera controls in a third person action game are a high priority (over the many C bugs we were fixing at the time). But designers don't get to design games anymore...

Anyway: Game ships, gets poor reviews quite often pointing out that very flaw and other obvious flaws that we tried to push to fix, and doesn't sell well. Eventually there are mass layoffs, and the ones complaining about the lack of good design (art & marketing was top notch of course) were laid off before the idiots in management that fucked it up.

tldr: The Industry Proper is full of idiots that did not grow up loving games that just want to turn a quick buck, and you don't have to look far to see evidence of this.


---------

Oh, to answer your question, my favorite trend that could be considered modern is making games easy to beat with optional difficulty for those who want a challenge. Too many old school games required dying over and over again to complete, which was rarely fun. I am of the school of thought that you can give a score for beating the game, and take away from that score whenever the player would otherwise "die". If the player wants to challenge themselves to a higher score, they can start over when they mess up. If they are busy and just want to beat the game (like I often am), they can continue playing knowing there is a better score if they want to try again later. No need for the developer to say "hey, you made one mistake, now start over from the beginning of the level" anymore; we don't need their quarters

[zombieonion]

Multiplayer. Massive multiplayer. Co-op games with friends over the internet.
Playing with friends as an adult is a lot more achievable when your friends can be reached over the internet. As a kid you may have lived next door, and played hotseat or splitscreen. Now you have Steam, PSN and XBL instead to keep track of your mates. It is good.

Games have become more portable. This is great. You can now play something quick and simple instead of reading on a long train ride. God forbid you have to talk to other passengers.

If you are impressed with physics engines, just wait until we get chemistry engines. And biology engines.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't think there's much in terms of pure concepts, but indies can learn a lot about polish and visual effects from AAA games. for instance, i play league of legends a lot, so naturally league of legends is going to influence my current game's design even though it's in a totally different genre. but it influences it in purely 'polish' ways:

first one is particle effects: i like how the particle effects are done in LoL, and i created ones in a similar style (even though my game is 2d and it's 3d, the basics of particle systems transfer over). it's something probably nobody pays attention to in a game anyway, but if you look closely that game has pretty well done particles, especially considering it's a low-end game that runs on pretty much any computer

second one is clouds: i liked how, almost imperceptibly unless you look for it, league of legends has slow-moving cloud shadows on the ground, so i created a similar system for my game. this is also something that can easily transfer over from 3d back to 2d. and i know it's not particularly new to have cloud shadows moving along the floor (even some snes rpgs had it), i just liked the way it was done there, where they're slightly fuzzy, pretty big, and very slow moving, and so transparent that you don't really notice them unless you look for them

similarly, from other games i get ideas for GUI elements, making words or boxes flash in interesting ways, stuff like that. even final fantasy x-2, which most people (not including me) think of as a horrible game, has a wonderfully pretty GUI, with a lot to learn from in that regard (i think it still has the best and most interesting GUI of any ps2 game)

but again this is all visual. in terms of actual "gameplay" rules, i don't think i get many ideas from AAA games at all

[MaloEspada]

there is a "parody RPG" in Retro Game Challenge that kinda looks like one of those 8-Bit RPGs from the NES era. it looks like an 8-bit RPG and the gameplay is basically similar too, but there are some "modern era" concepts thrown in there.

for example, you can save anywhere, anytime (except during battles). in old RPGs you could only save when talking to the king / princess / save point / whatever.

another thing is the "warp" skill which can take you to any dungeon/town without going through multiple hours of backtracking and facing random encounters. also saves you a lot of time.

i guess these mechanics don't really take out the fun of the game but instead make it FUNNER, because it removes a lot of frustration.

i haven't read the other posts so i hope i'm talking about the right thing here

[Sankar]

I never really understood why all the hate towards modern gaming. Sometimes I think its nostalgia or anything, but really.
Games are a (mostly) commercial form of entertainment, and as any other, it has been plaged by people looking for quick money and blessed by great minds.

NES had awful games, so the snes, the playstation, the playstation 2, the playstation 3...
But NES had some great games, the SNES, the Playstation, The Playstation 2, The Playstation 3 too...

We have butchered games now as we did back then. Games destroyed by budget problems, companies firing entire subdivisions and "marketing up" games before release.
We have games today that looks like someone paid the reviewers to give it a good score, as we had games back then that after extensive coverage by some gaming magazine, was only beatable if you bought the magazine. Because of some "hidden item in a wall where you need to crouch for 5 seconds and press B."

Gaming has its highs and low, always had, always will have.


About "Modern Games" concepts:

Games, like Music and Movies, create new concepts mostly by mixing.
You mix rap and rock, Rapcore... You add electronic: New-Metal.
you mix comedy and romance... romantic comedies.

so is games,
Survival Horror Games mix action gaming with Adventure (item collecting and placing, puzzles)

So, I believe modern games are as useful to be researched as any other games.

[Lustdante]

 

It seems we mostly celebrate technical innovation of modern games more then any other elements that contribute to creation of video game. This trend is somewhat inevitable because games with great story but broken gameplay don't sell a lot while games that play well even with generic, nondescript story can still sell.

On the other hand, people consider plot and story quality of movies as much as or more then they consider quality of actors, jokes, technologies, and action scenes. Well, there are tons of shitty movies out there nonetheless, but highly acclaimed movies, while still managed to keep the crowd entertained, contain thought provoking plot in common. Video games of people's choice definitely excel in presentation, technology, and game mechanics then any other games, but only few of them possess that level of meaningfulness.

Games are indeed commercial form of entertainment, and entertainment industry does whatever to maximize their profit. However, movies are also part of entertainment industry, and yes, they have crossed many lines just for lucrative purpose, but those that stand out nowadays present more cultural significance by making the experience... more meaningful.

[eiyukabe]

I never really understood why all the hate towards modern gaming. Sometimes I think its nostalgia or anything, but really.

I can only speak for myself.

Firstly, I was young when I played 8 bit and 16 bit games, so I did not have a world-view developed enough to know of the problems going on back then. Now not only am I an adult, I have industry experience, so I hate it from the perspective of a gamer and a developer trying desperately to create something not just profitable but meaningful.

I "hate" modern games more than past games because they're in the past; what's the point of being upset about it anymore? The problems that plague modern game companies might not be new, but they are the ones that we have to deal with now. So I focus on them.

Also, from an enjoyment point of view, I enjoy far fewer games nowadays than when I was younger. I've thought it might be rose-colored nostalgia glasses, but then games like The World Ends With You or New Super Mario Bros. Wii come out and show that I am capable of experiencing games with as much joy nowadays as when I was a kid. Companies just don't try as hard anymore, or there are too many companies that don't try hard that bring the average down. I've mentioned before, but I've experienced firsthand the indifference that management has at large publishers, so I know it's not just tinfoil hat speculation. I've also talked to people who have worked in the industry for decades and the vibe I get is that creatives had more freedom back in "the day", which I'm sure contributed to games being more sincere and designed to bring joy to players instead of money to investors.

[mirosurabu]

AAA industry serves teenage fantasies and as I'm not into that stuff anymore, I don't like them much. But, regardless of that, they do have strengths - technology and accessibility. They also started to attract wider audience, so maybe one day they will also make something that I would REALLY want to play.

[gimymblert]

Whatever eiyukabe said !